http://www.castleageforums.com/cforum/
enMon, 19 Nov 2018 22:50:13 GMTvBulletin60http://www.castleageforums.com/cforum/images/misc/rss.pnghttp://www.castleageforums.com/cforum/
Anyone using Thane?http://www.castleageforums.com/cforum/showthread.php?83177-Anyone-using-Thane&goto=newpost
Tue, 06 Nov 2018 05:33:26 GMTWas just wondering if anyone was using Thane at all. Was curious on how he would fit in a general alliance. I would love to use him in an alliance...Was just wondering if anyone was using Thane at all. Was curious on how he would fit in a general alliance. I would love to use him in an alliance with Layla but dont know if you can use them together. Can anyone confirm if they can work together. Looking for ideas on how to fit him in somewhere.

Thank You
]]>Lucifferhttp://www.castleageforums.com/cforum/showthread.php?83177-Anyone-using-ThaneMonkey king in monster hunting alliancehttp://www.castleageforums.com/cforum/showthread.php?83169-Monkey-king-in-monster-hunting-alliance&goto=newpost
Mon, 05 Nov 2018 09:55:13 GMTI have Dolomar, Monkey King and Zarevok in my monster hunting alliance, in that order. Dolomar is maxed out, with 5*, with gems etc the critical...I have Dolomar, Monkey King and Zarevok in my monster hunting alliance, in that order. Dolomar is maxed out, with 5*, with gems etc the critical reaches around 28% at the moment.

Monkey king is 2* (one spare waiting for a companion, maybe some day...) at level 69, giving around 5.5% no token use.

I also have Kang, a 2* at present, relatively low level since I wasn't concentrating on levelling him up...

I wonder, given Monkey King's relatively low no token use percentage, and that he's slow in levelling up, whether it may not be more prudent to replace him in the monster hunting alliance with Kang. I'm not sure I see a huge benefit in keeping MK during monster hunting yet... Maybe Kang giving additional critical, going over 30% would be more useful, in the monster alliance?

Zarevok is also 2* level 69, providing over 2k monster damage. I don't think I should replace him with Kang, right...? ( I have low level Sahar, but all my red potions are feeding Jera right now)..
]]>starbearerhttp://www.castleageforums.com/cforum/showthread.php?83169-Monkey-king-in-monster-hunting-alliancehttp://www.castleageforums.com/cforum/showthread.php?83166-Meteorite-amp-similar-events-Stamina-amp-Energy-hits-Strategy&goto=newpost
Fri, 02 Nov 2018 16:08:45 GMTHey guys!

I know it's already been discussed, but it's hard to find info in all the previous threads.

Also, now that we've had a fair number of this event, maybe people know more about it / have adapted their strategy.

My question is simply:What amount of stamina & energy do you use for a hit on a monster to maximize your meteorite gains?

I usually use 300 energy to heal, and 60 stamina to attack.

Energy:
300 energy isn't 100%, so it's not overhitting, and has a good chance of giving a meteorite/candy. I find using less energy kinda frustrating.
Also I think that's the max you can spend at once. Or is there a 200 energy button on some monsters that I'm forgetting about?

Stamina:
I'm not sure about stamina. Maybe I should do 150 or even 200 hits? Or more?
I don't think 200 is 100% chance. Is 250 (Orc King) 100%? Or 300?

In the end, as long as you're not overhitting, maybe there's no bad strategy? That is, if your chance of getting a meteorite is linearly related to the amount of stamina spent (which seems to be the case?).
Does it just depend on whether you like gambling (smaller hits) or not (bigger hits)?

Also, just to be sure: Every hit chance is independent, right? Meaning, if you do a 1000 stam hit, you won't have more chance at getting a meteorite in the next hits?

Thanks!
]]>gogoohttp://www.castleageforums.com/cforum/showthread.php?83166-Meteorite-amp-similar-events-Stamina-amp-Energy-hits-StrategyChaos gems: full campaign vs tasks onlyhttp://www.castleageforums.com/cforum/showthread.php?83160-Chaos-gems-full-campaign-vs-tasks-only&goto=newpost
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:01:37 GMT[The following are thoughts from a f2p or casual spender point of view]

NOTE: Maybe title should be: full campaign vs "tasks only"

When asked how to get epic gems, I have always said that it is more "stamina efficient" to open hard campaign and limit yourself to the tasks that you can do* than doing full easy or normal campaign and then upgrade.
*: without overkilling monsters or doing things that don't fit your playstile.

I still think the same, but what if we factor in time?

In the process of cleaning & updating the wiki I have read a page from Willbur (which I can't find tright now) where he stated (more or less, these are my words) that chaos gems were so game breaking that were worth the effort, even if it meant wasting stamina due to overkilling monsters. He concluded that gems were more important than gear and thus it didn't matter if that stamina would have killed 4 Vargulis instead of one.

It makes sense to me, specially since the thresholds for legendary gems' bonuses have started to be shared.

My method will, in the end, provide me the Legendaries I need, but at a ratio of 1 a year, more or less.

The questions are:
Do you players think it is worth to save stamina and avoid those tasks from monsters? Does it make sense to deal that 15% damage in order to get the gem in just one campaign so you start taking profit from the bonuses earlier?
Has anyone done the Maths? Is there any math-friendly approach to calculate this?

I don't really know if I have explained myself correctly, please feel free to ask if needed.
]]>Barathorhttp://www.castleageforums.com/cforum/showthread.php?83160-Chaos-gems-full-campaign-vs-tasks-only